Use Justice Steven's logic against him?

[E Pluribus Unum]

The very fact that there are states in this country where non residents have no legal way to protect themselves while visiting ought to be reason enough for the feds to take a hard look at the anti 2a laws in these states. People are always talking about our rights under the constitution but many states have outright canceled these rights and nothing is said.

Sounds like an argument for "national right to carry". It seems this case would support mandatory reciprocity of CCWs between states.

Using the Dissent's language in most cases (ignore the last decade, though) is akin to trying win a game of baseball whilst applying the rules from curling.

In this case, he wrote the majority opinion.

[BryMan92]

Sounds like an argument for "national right to carry". It seems this case would support mandatory reciprocity of CCWs between states.



In this case, he wrote the majority opinion.

Woops, had read Heller for some reason. At any case, case can be made for the last decade the Heller dissent also wrote the majority.

[R Dale]

IMO since its beyond obvious that there are many states that intend to block the 2nd amendment from working it is past time the feds remove gun control from the state and local level.

[E Pluribus Unum]

IMO since its beyond obvious that there are many states that intend to block the 2nd amendment from working it is past time the feds remove gun control from the state and local level.

The case as cited would be very bad for that agenda. SCOTUS has ruled that we have a constitutional right to travel, but has fallen short on giving federal authority to protect that right.

[TruOil]

If the Court applies a First Amendment type analysis in NYRPA, then we could see a national right to carry subject to "reasonable" time, place and manner restrictions. the hard question will be "what is reasonable?" the Court has already signaled in Heller that restrictions in government buildings and schools is permissible, but will that lead to an affirmance of the GFSZA? If the GFSZA is affirmed along with its 1000' exclusion zone, added to the current Appeals Courts' affirmance of bans on unlicensed concealed carry, urban carry pretty much goes out the window in restrictive states such as California, etc etc.

[Uncivil Engineer]

IMO since its beyond obvious that there are many states that intend to block the 2nd amendment from working it is past time the feds remove gun control from the state and local level.

There only way to happens is off we pass a new law in the model of the voters right act. Where localities that were 2a hostile must get pre clearance before passing any gun law. That will shut down the pass the law for political reasons only to watch it over turned years later. It would also put those leftist judges on notice that this collective right bs and their other insanity trying to ignore the second won't be allowed anymore.

[R Dale]

There only way to happens is off we pass a new law in the model of the voters right act. Where localities that were 2a hostile must get pre clearance before passing any gun law. That will shut down the pass the law for political reasons only to watch it over turned years later. It would also put those leftist judges on notice that this collective right bs and their other insanity trying to ignore the second won't be allowed anymore.

There are a number of ways this can happen but a decision needs to be made at the federal level once and for all That being do states have to follow the constitution or not? If they do then enforce that if not lets admit we don't have a real active constitution in this country and move on. This constant back and forth in the courts with nothing really being resolved needs to stop.